Control of Horses Bill

George Eustice Excerpts

Friday 16th January 2015 Commons Chamber

These amendments appear well intentioned, but they are potentially cumbersome. The right hon. Gentleman who has moved them has elaborated on their intention, but I am afraid has not, to my satisfaction, made a case strong enough to warrant Opposition support. Of course the guidance that emerges from this Bill may well detail good practice, which involves notice being given wherever possible at a specific address and, where it is warranted, this being given by way of first-class post. On that note, I await the Minister’s response.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) for tabling these amendments and asking some important questions about the Bill.

Amendment 1 seeks to add ponies and jennets to the definition of a horse covered by the Bill and, in turn, to the provisions on horses in the Animals Act 1971. It may be helpful quickly to explain how the provisions in the Control of Horses Bill amend the Animals Act 1971. The Bill carves out special arrangements in the 1971 Act for stray and fly-grazing horses and other equidae. Its leaves the measures in the 1971 Act as they apply to other livestock unchanged. The provisions cover a range of equidae. As well as horses, the Bill’s provisions apply to asses, mules and hinnies. These equidae need special mention because, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) pointed out, they are not horses. Each is a different species. Horses are of the equus ferus caballus, and ponies are of the same species, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. It might also be worth clarifying that the legal definition of a donkey is an ass, so they are also covered.

A pony is just a small horse and does not need to be specified, so they are already covered. Similarly, a jennet is a small breed of horse. Thus neither ponies nor jennets need to included in the definition of horse.

For completeness, I should say that I asked a number of questions about the definitions when scrutinising this Bill with officials, and I therefore point out that a mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse, and a hinny is the offspring of a male horse and a female donkey. That is made clear in the legislation.

I understand the reasoning behind amendments 2 and 3. My right hon. Friend just wants to make it clear that there is a proper process for contacting the owners of a horse, where this is known. Unfortunately, it is not always easy for a person or local authority detaining a horse to identify the owner and then serve them with a notice of detention. Many fly-grazed horses cannot be identified through microchipping, as required by law, and even when a horse can be properly identified, the person detaining it might not be able to access its identification data.

We considered these points and decided that the police should remain the central point of contact for reporting detained or missing horses, and that notice of detention should be registered with the police in any case, even when the person detaining the horse is able to notify the horse’s owner. Under the existing provisions in the Animals Act 1971, the police have systems in place for registering this kind of information, which is often shared with local authorities. Horse owners should therefore contact the police immediately if they are concerned that their horse might have been detained.

The Bill leaves it open to the person detaining a fly-grazing horse to contact the owner directly, if the owner is known to him, but I believe that it would be a backward step to prescribe what form such action should take, such as sending a letter by first-class post, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire suggests. The person might know which caravan the owner lived in, for example, and could go and knock on their door and talk to them. Alternatively, they might know the owner’s e-mail address. It would be wrong to be prescriptive in this regard.

I asked questions about this again when we were considering the Bill, and I want to reassure my right hon. Friend. Clause 3(2) of the Bill states:

“The right to detain the horse ceases at the end of the period of 24 hours”,

and goes on to say that the person detaining the horse must notify the police and the owner, if they know who that is. If the Bill had required notification of the police or the owner, but not both, he might have a stronger case for requiring more clarity. I believe that the requirement to notify both, and to contact the police in any event, will provide sufficient clarity. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), pointed out, we are keen to get the Bill through and it would be wrong to introduce measures that were inconsistent with the 1971 Act. I therefore hope that, in the light of these clarifications, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire will be able to withdraw his amendment.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak briefly to amendments 1, 2 and 3, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot). I must also put on record my thanks for his support for the Bill. On amendment 1, the Minister has already set out how a horse is defined for the purposes of the Bill. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), has set out his position on that as well, and I do not need to say more on that.

I should like to speak briefly to amendments 2 and 3. I completely understand the very sensible intentions behind the amendments, but I believe that the police must remain the central point of contact, as the Minister has said. It is also clear that there has to be flexibility in these circumstances. First-class post might be the most appropriate way of notifying an owner in certain circumstances, but it is essential to have flexibility on that decision, and not to specify in statute exactly what should be done. The Minister talked about the time involved, and using first-class post might delay the notification so that it did not arrive within the required four clear days.

I fear that the introduction of detailed specifications of how notifications should be served could unnecessarily delay what should be an immediate process relating to animal welfare. Such delay must be avoided in the interests of all parties involved, not least the fly-grazed horses, in the light of the welfare issues involved. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will not press his amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I rise again to speak briefly to this amendment. It is not unusual for Bills passing through this place to include Wales in their jurisdiction. My understanding is that Wales is included in the Bill for technical reasons. The Animals Act 1971, which the Bill amends, extends to both countries, and any Bill that amends that Act needs to apply its provisions to both countries. However, because the Welsh Assembly has legislated for fly-grazing separately in the Control of Horses (Wales) Act 2014, the provisions of this Bill will in effect apply only to England. The 1971 Act does not apply to either Scotland or Northern Ireland, so they do not need to be included in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister reassured the House that the provisions in the Bill will apply in effect only to England. If that is the case, we would not wish to support the amendment.

[George Eustice]

Amendment 4 seeks to limit the extent of the Bill to England only, and not to England and Wales as currently drafted. I realise that it might be confusing to have a Bill that extends to both England and Wales but has provisions that apply only to England, but I can reassure hon. Members that this is not a mistake. The Bill extends to England and Wales for legal reasons. As the shadow Minister pointed out, the Bill amends the Animals Act 1971, which extends to England and Wales. Because the 1971 Act extends to England and Wales, any Bill that amends it must also apply to England and Wales.

I shall give the shadow Minister the reassurance that he seeks. Although the Bill extends to England and Wales, none of the provisions will apply in Wales. Furthermore, none of the amendments that are made to the Animals Act will apply to Wales. I should also point out that we took soundings from the Welsh Government when considering these matters, to ascertain whether they wanted Wales to come under the scope of this Bill, but the feedback that we received was that because they had introduced their own legislation in this area, they did not want to confuse matters further by extending these provisions to cover Wales. That is why the Bill explicitly excludes Wales. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) will not press his amendments to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on getting his private Member’s Bill to this stage. I have been in the House for only five years, but I did have a private Member’s Bill in the first year of the Parliament. It was not successful, I am afraid; it did not even get its Second Reading, let alone progress to Committee, Report and Third Reading.

The Bill addresses a serious and growing problem. There is a charity called the Flicka Foundation in my constituency; it is a donkey sanctuary, which also looks after some ponies. Its representatives tell me that in recent years they have seen a huge increase in the number of abandoned donkeys and ponies that they are asked to re-home. Other equine charities say the same.

There are a number of key implications to the situation: the impact on the welfare of the ponies; the hazard on the roads—as my hon. Friend pointed out, accidents can be caused; and the huge burden on landowners unable to do anything about the abandoned ponies they have been left with. Sometimes, people game the system. People have abandoned their ponies on somebody’s land for up to 14 days and then, just before the order to seize the horse, they move it on to somebody else’s field and start the whole process again. As my hon. Friend said, there have even been instances of people abandoning their horses without a microchip and buying them back at auction after the landowner has been required by law to have them microchipped.

The problem is serious. My hon. Friend has championed the issue for many years; his first parliamentary debate on the matter was in 2012. A number of other hon. Members have also been consistent champions. The first time I debated the issue was in Westminster Hall in November 2013, a debate led by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot). I have received a great deal of correspondence from concerned colleagues on this issue.

Throughout the debate, there has been a suggestion that we should adopt an approach similar to that implemented in Wales in 2014. It is worth pointing out that there has always been a range of other legislative tools in the box. I will reflect on those, as I highlighted them in earlier debates. First, there is the Animals Act 1971, which this Bill seeks to amend. There is also the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Highways Act 1980, which deals with stray livestock. The new Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 could also be used in this area.

All that said, as the debate progressed, particularly after the 2013 Westminster Hall debate, we conceded that a number of important things had changed. First, the requirement to microchip horses had increased the costs and burdens on landowners who took remedial action when horses were abandoned on their land. Secondly, the original legislation restricted disposal methods to sale at auction. When the law was originally put in place in 1971, people could expect abandoned ponies to fetch reasonable prices at auction. That is not the case now. As the shadow Minister pointed out, there has been a period of irresponsible breeding of cob ponies, which have very little value so landowners are unable to recover their costs in auctions. We recognised that two important things had changed since the 1971 Act and that there was a gap that we should seek to address, borrowing elements from the approach adopted in Wales.

The Bill creates new options for disposal, including the ability to gift abandoned ponies and horses to charities; that is not possible under the existing legislation—first, they have to go through an auction process. For the worst cases, the Bill creates the possibility for euthanasia. Nobody wants that to happen, but welfare charities would point out that having a large number of ponies abandoned on verges and starving is not good from a welfare point of view. Sometimes in those cases, euthanasia can be the right approach.

The second and most important feature of the Bill is that it condenses the time scale of the detention period from 14 days to four working days. It also reduces the notice period from three days to 24 hours. When withdrawing his amendments, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire said that he hoped I would give further thought to his points, which he did not feel had been adequately covered. I owe it to him to have another go at persuading him that we do not need to change things as he suggested.

We think four working days a reasonable period for detention, and sufficient to enable people to report the situation to the police, because the animal welfare codes for looking after horses are clear: people should attend to their horses—checking that they are okay—at least once a day. If somebody has not reported a missing horse to the police within four days, that is a pretty good indicator that that horse is not being cared for correctly. In normal circumstances, we would expect somebody to realise within 24 hours that their pony had gone missing—escaped out of a field or jumped the hedge. They would then immediately report that to the police. Having a notice period of 24 hours and a detention period of four working days provides ample time for the situation to be picked up and for legitimate owners who have legitimately lost their horses to be protected.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

I accept my hon. Friend’s point, but if he thinks it is sufficient to give notice to the police, the Government ought to consider dropping the point that if the person detaining the horse knows the person to whom the horse belongs, notice should be given to that person as well. If notifying the police is sufficient, that subsection should be dropped.

[George Eustice]

We put the subsection there as an additional mechanism. I do not see a reason not to have it. If the person detaining the horse feels they know the owner, they can tell them directly and quickly, but that does not remove the requirement for them to tell the police in any event. The starting point is that if they decide to detain a horse, in any event they must notify the police. If they happen to know the owner of the horse, it is reasonable to put on them a due diligence requirement to notify the owner at the same time.

In Committee we broadened the scope of the Bill so that it covered detention of horses not just on public land, but on private land. As the hon. Member for York Outer pointed out, that is important. If the scope had been limited to public land, as is the case in Wales, there is a danger that the problem would merely be displaced to private land. If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing properly. The Animals Act 1971 deals with both public and private land and we concluded that it was essential that the Bill should be consistent with that Act and cover private land as well.

In conclusion, I am very pleased that my hon. Friend’s Bill has reached this stage. The Government fully support it and hope that we can get it through in this Session, before the break-up of Parliament, reassured that we have full support from the Opposition Benches and cross-party support. I wish the Bill a fair wind as it goes through proceedings in the other place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Bat Habitats Regulation Bill

George Eustice Excerpts

Friday 16th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

In debates such as this one, we learn something new every day. I learned this morning that there are no fewer than 17 different bat species in the UK. Most evolved to live, breed and forage in or around trees and caves, but many have now adapted to roost in buildings, including barns, houses, churches, tunnels and bridges, because so many natural roosts have been lost through modern agriculture and forestry practices as well as urban growth.

Artificial roosts have thus become essential to the survival of many bat species, but with so many man-made roosts under threat from the demolition of old buildings, barn conversions, an increasing use of artificial lighting and the move towards airtight buildings, the remaining roost sites are of increasing importance. Decreasing the protection afforded to bats in these important sites is therefore likely to have an impact on the conservation status of bats in the UK.

In the light of their vulnerability, bats have been subject to national protection, most recently under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. At the European level, this was augmented by protection under the European habitats directive in 1994. In accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, which transpose the habitats directive, it is a criminal offence deliberately to kill, injure, take or disturb bats. There is also a strict liability offence of damage or destruction to their breeding site or resting place. Additional Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provisions protect bats from disturbance in their place of rest or from the obstruction of such locations.

The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) proposes that surveys must be undertaken before any new buildings are built to assess the presence of bats in the area, and that if there are any bats present, the building should proceed only if bat boxes are provided with the building. However, the requirement to be aware of the existence of bats, and to consider the impacts of any building on their numbers, already exists. Local planning authorities already have a duty to take biodiversity and the requirements of the habitats directive into account when considering developments. Mitigation of damage to bat roosts and resting places may be required, but bat boxes and artificial roosts are only two of the possible measures that can be implemented, and each case should be considered on its merits. Furthermore, bats require not just protected roost sites but suitable habitats in which to feed, and the Bill does not take account of that.

The Bill requires a bat survey to take place, and prohibits the placing of wind turbines in the vicinity of any bat habitat. However, bat surveys are already undertaken at potential wind turbine sites when bats are nearby. An interesting discussion is taking place about evidence of the impact of wind turbines on bats. That evidence is fairly mixed. Some studies in the United States and Canada suggested that there could be an impact, but, in order to clarify the position in the United Kingdom the Government are conducting their own research, which will be completed later this year. If that research establishes that the current approach to planning in respect of wind turbines is insufficient to protect bats, we will review our approach at that point.

The Bill proposes that bats should be excluded or removed from any place of worship unless it has been demonstrated that their presence would not have an adverse impact on the users of such a place. Apart from the fact that the Bill is rather loosely worded—for instance, it does not define an adverse impact or a place of worship—such a blanket prohibition does not take account of either the potential importance of some churches to vulnerable bat populations, or the work that the Government are doing to alleviate the impact in such places when bats are causing a nuisance or distress.

In a changing landscape, where hedgerows and other linear features that are so important to bats have been lost as roosting sites, churches can be important to, in particular, some of our rarer birds. However, the Government recognise, and are sympathetic to, the concern of parishioners who are suffering from the effects of bat droppings on pews, precious artefacts and equipment in the public and private areas of their churches. To address that concern, we have invested considerable resources in research and development to establish how we can reduce the impact of bats in churches.

A three-year research project was completed in March 2014, and a current project, led by English Heritage, is devolving a toolkit to assist churches with significant bat-related problems. That current project is also bringing benefits to some of the worst-affected churches. Natural England, as the Government’s licensing body, is producing a licensing framework as part of the toolkit, which will be the mechanism through which the research will be delivered. External funding is being sought to support the roll-out of the toolkit, and to create an effective national support network for churches with bat-related problems. Major strides are being made. For instance, at one church in Yorkshire, St Hilda’s, work instigated by Natural England has dealt with the problem comprehensively, while ensuring that bats are able to roost in the roof of the building.

My hon. Friend alluded to my Eurosceptic credentials, and asked me about the impact of the habitats directive in this country. He may be aware that the European Commission has committed itself to reviewing certain elements of the directive to establish whether they are proportionate. So, in addition to all the work that we are doing nationally, a European-level review is under way. However, I think that the work that we have done locally and nationally demonstrates that peaceful co-existence is possible, and that we can deal with the problem without necessarily removing bats.

Adoption of Sewers (Home Improvement)

George Eustice Excerpts

Friday 16th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) for raising this important issue. As he said, before 2011, home owners were responsible for their sewers and pipes. Should anything have happened to those pipes, it was down to the home owners to cover the expense, and attempt to recover costs from those neighbours who shared the same pipes.

In October 2011, the Government implemented the water industry regulations transferring the ownership of, and responsibility for, private sewers and lateral drains to the water and sewerage companies. My hon. Friend rightly pays tribute to the sterling efforts of his constituent, Pam Brockway and others, in bringing this unfair practice of passing the cost on to individual home owners to the attention of Government, which resulted in those legislative changes.

I have also had experience of this matter in my own constituency. I remember meeting in one of my surgeries an elderly lady who was being bullied by a cowboy builder to sign on the dotted line to say that she would pay £10,000 towards the upkeep of a private sewer that was collectively owned. She resisted that, but I have heard of many other such practices, often involving vulnerable people.

In addition to preventing unexpected and substantial sewer repair bills going to individuals, the 2011 transfer has also meant that the sewer network can be systematically upgraded over time. The consequence has been a regularly maintained and more resilient sewer system.

The 2011 transfer has resulted in a greater focus on the 2010 building regulations. The regulations set out how buildings should be built or improved. Although no changes were made to the 2010 building regulations, the transfer regulations enabled building regulations more effectively to achieve their aim of ensuring that new buildings and extensions are constructed in a way that does not adversely affect the sewers. Given the general lack of awareness among home owners before the 2011 transfer, private sewers were at great risk of compromise or damage when construction took place—ultimately at the considerable expense of individual home owners.

The local authority, or approved private sector building control body, has the final say on whether any works comply with building regulations, although they must have regard to any views expressed by the sewerage undertaker, such as when a sewer is within 3 metres of the proposed works. Furthermore, even if the developer disagrees with the building control body, there is the option to apply to the Department for Communities and Local Government for an independent determination.

I wish now to address some of the points made by my hon. Friend. He pointed out that the 2011 transfer could not resolve all the issues. He has highlighted six important issues including: the legal requirement for a build-over agreement; charges levied by water companies for build-over agreements and works to be done; the time taken for the process of agreement; and the paucity of information about where the sewers are located.

First, there is no formal legal requirement to obtain a build-over agreement. However, it is considered good practice to obtain the permission of the water company responsible for a sewer or drain affected by any proposed building project, and that is also encouraged by the approved building regulations guidance. Water and sewerage companies are best placed to advise on suitable actions or possible risks to the sewerage network as a result of building work.

My hon. Friend makes a very good point regarding the variance in the charges levied by water companies for build-over agreements. We all want to see that any such costs are reasonable, proportionate, appropriate and consistent; otherwise we will have saved home owners one expense through the 2011 transfer only to expose them to new costs.

My hon. Friend highlights the importance of guidance. He is right that the solution to these and many of the other issues would be a joint industry-developed code of practice governing the processes of securing a build-over agreement and bringing transparency to the costs involved. A code of practice could also address any issues concerning timing and make it clear where responsibilities lie for repairs to sewers when the construction is being carried out or who retains liability for the quality of the construction and its potential impact on the sewer underneath in the long term.

The Glass and Glazing Federation has already taken the initiative in drawing up a draft. The Government have been talking to the water companies about working with the Glass and Glazing Federation to reach a common approach and I am told that we can expect positive developments soon. I welcome that, but I want to see even greater momentum behind the idea of the code of practice. In advance of the debate, I contacted the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), who is responsible for water, forestry, rural affairs and resource management. The Under-Secretary intends to write to Water UK, the organisation that represents the water companies, to encourage that development. I hope that from this debate we will see momentum behind the idea of a code of practice, because given that there is no formal legal requirement for the build-over agreements, which are only set out in guidance, home owners are in a strong position to get credible guidance that prevents water companies from charging excessively for these agreements.

[Mark Pawsey]

One or two water companies seem to be suggesting that the need for a build-over agreement is a legal requirement. Does the Minister agree that that information is inaccurate and should be withdrawn?

[George Eustice]

They are incorrect in that. There is no legal requirement for a build-over agreement, but it is set out in guidance. The legal requirement is that people should have regard for the views of water companies, so they should consult them. There is no statutory requirement for a build-over agreement, but it is set out in guidance that they should be encouraged. I hope that that clarifies the position.

My hon. Friend raised an additional concern that many sewers are, as yet, unmapped. Section 199 of the Water Industry Act 1991 places a requirement on sewerage undertakers to maintain an up-to-date map of their sewers. However, ownership of some 220,000 km of unmapped sewer and lateral drain pipework transferred overnight in 2011. The impact assessment for the 2011 transfer estimated that mapping all that pipework as part of a distinct project would cost more than £1.3 billion. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that to avoid unnecessary costs for water bill payers, water companies are updating their maps during the course of their normal activities. If the sewer or lateral drain does not appear on the sewer map, there is no requirement for the building control body to consult the water company.

My hon. Friend refers to the Government’s aim to cut red tape and the positive steps taken to streamline the planning regime and help stimulate the building industry. The building regulations set out requirements for construction and how structures are built. Fair and effective building regulations are vital to ensure that the public and the environment are suitably protected. None the less, I reiterate that there is no formal legal requirement to gain permission from water companies, although it is recognised as good practice in building regulations guidance.

In conclusion, my hon. Friend has raised an important point. I agree that the answer is to have a voluntary code of conduct supported by the industry and I believe that home owners are in a strong position given that there is no formal legal requirement for a build-over agreement. I encourage him to engage with the Under-Secretary and perhaps with Department for Communities and Local Government Ministers to make progress on the idea of a voluntary code.

Question put and agreed to.

Greyhound Welfare

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on raising this issue. I was interested to hear about his background in and experience of greyhounds, as well as the direct experience of greyhounds of the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) has a long-standing record of championing animal welfare issues; he has clearly followed this issue particularly closely.

The treatment of racing greyhounds, both during and after their racing lives, is also a matter of concern for the public. This debate is very timely, because I will be able to say a few words about what the Government will be doing on greyhound racing during the coming months, and in particular about our plans to review the current regulations early next year.

[Ian Swales]

Earlier this year, I took my constituent Trudy Baker, who is a prominent member of the Greyt Exploitations charity, to see Lord De Mauley, who is a Minister. On 1 April, Lord De Mauley wrote to me promising the setting up of a review group to assess the 2010 regulations. Has that group been set up? If so, when will it report?

[George Eustice]

I was going to come on to say that the original legislation envisaged a review in 2015. Work towards that review has already begun with officials, and the intention—as I was going to say later on—is that we shall shortly have a discussion with stakeholders and those involved in greyhound racing, before going to a wider public consultation. I myself have had the opportunity to talk to Lord De Mauley, who leads on this particular issue in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I know that he has visited greyhound racetracks and has already met many stakeholders to discuss these particular issues.

I shall first set out the current legislative framework covering the welfare of greyhounds in England. This matter is, of course, a devolved one. However, it is a reality that the majority of greyhound tracks in Britain—some 30 out of 34 tracks—are in England. There are a further three tracks in Scotland and one in Wales. The majority of those 30 tracks in England—24 in total—are currently affiliated to the Greyhound Board of Great Britain. Following the 2007 report on greyhound racing that was led by Lord Donoughue, the GBGB has been the main governing body of the sport since January 2009. However, there are a further six tracks that are currently not affiliated to the GBGB: these are the so-called independent tracks, which tend to be smaller. They race independently of the GBGB.

[Ian Lavery]

Just to clarify that point, does the Minister mean that those independent tracks are not licensed by the GBGB, rather than “not affiliated to” it?

[George Eustice]

That is right. My understanding is that if tracks are affiliated to the GBGB, they are licensed by it. The independent tracks, which tend to be the smaller ones, are directly licensed by the relevant local authority.

Nevertheless, it is important to note that welfare standards for all racing greyhounds in England are covered by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010. The 2006 Act is wide ranging, but it allows action to be taken where there is evidence of cruelty to an animal or of a failure to provide for an animal’s welfare needs. This includes, for instance, when greyhounds are kept away from the track, such as at a trainer’s kennels, which is often flagged as a point of concern by some animal welfare groups.

Further to the general provisions under the 2006 Act, which apply everywhere, the welfare standards at all greyhound racing tracks in England are specifically covered by the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010. Introduced in April 2010, these regulations require that all tracks must do the following: first, they must have a vet present at all races, race trials and sales trials, with all greyhounds inspected by the vet before they are allowed to run; secondly, the tracks must provide suitable kennelling; thirdly, all greyhounds be microchipped and earmarked before they can race or trial; and finally, each track must keep records of all dogs that are raced or trialled at that track, and of any dogs injured during a race, trial or sales trial.

These standards are regulated either by the track’s local authority—that is the case for independent tracks, as I have pointed out—or, as in the majority of cases, by the GBGB, which regulates 24 tracks. However, the GBGB is only allowed to regulate these standards on the basis that it is accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service for the audit of greyhound tracks against the standards required by the 2010 regulations.

At this point, it might help the House if I briefly discussed what we mean by the term “self-regulation”. The hon. Member for Islwyn said that this is still very much self-regulated. However, I do not think it is quite as simple as that, because the position is firmer than simply having a voluntary code.

Prior to the introduction of the regulations in 2010, the industry was self-regulated in the way that most people would understand the term. There were no specific statutory requirements for greyhound racing tracks, the industry set its own welfare rules of racing and there was no independent external scrutiny of how the National Greyhound Racing Club, which was the main industry regulator at the time, enforced its own rules. However, following the 2007 Donoughue report and the subsequent introduction of the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010, the minimum conditions required for all greyhound tracks in England are now set down by Parliament. Apart from local authorities, if any organisation wishes to regulate the standards themselves, it must have UKAS accreditation to do so. The GBGB is currently the only body certified in this way by UKAS and ensures that there is now external independent oversight of the enforcement work that the GBGB carries out.

While the current situation is often described as self-regulation, clearly 2010 marked a break with what had gone before. What we have is a statutory form of regulation that is enforced by an industry body that is then itself audited by an independent body established within Government.

It might be worth while my saying a little more about UKAS accreditation. UKAS is recognised by the Government as the sole UK organisation for the accreditation of certification, testing and inspection bodies to internationally agreed standards. UKAS accreditation provides an assurance of the competence, impartiality and integrity of assessment bodies. As UKAS accredits the GBGB as a certification body, I think that the Government can have confidence that the GBGB is effectively monitoring and verifying welfare standards as defined within the rules of racing and within the 2010 regulations.

UKAS’s accreditation process determines the technical competence and integrity of organisations acting as assessment bodies. Before UKAS accredits any organisation, the organisation will be subject to intensive audit to ensure compliance with the international standard for certification bodies, including witnessing the organisation’s own assessment activities. Accredited organisations are subject to annual surveillance visits and full reassessment after four years.

Organisations found not to be acting in accordance with their accreditation can have that suspended or even withdrawn. Should the GBGB ever lose its accreditation, the 2010 regulations would automatically remove its powers to regulate the standards set out in those regulations, and all GBGB tracks in England would then require a licence from their local authority.

If anyone has any concerns about how the GBGB is applying welfare standards as defined within the rules of the 2010 regulations, they can report them to UKAS. UKAS has powers to investigate any such concerns reported to it. The GBGB was accredited by UKAS in March 2010 and DEFRA officials have been told that since then UKAS has received no complaints about the efficacy with which the GBGB has approached its duties.

I want to say a little about the five-year review, which was touched on in an intervention. When the regulations were introduced in 2010, Ministers in the last Government committed to reviewing them after they had been in force for five years. As the House is aware, all new regulations now come with statutory five-year review clauses anyway, but it was always the intention—even under the previous Government, and even before the statutory requirement to review regulations every five years was in place—to review these particular regulations after five years.

The review is due in April 2015, but work on it has already begun. We aim to go out to key stakeholders early in the new year, to collect the evidence that we need to assess the effectiveness of the regulations. Once we have independently collected and considered that evidence, DEFRA will go out to a wider public consultation, which will most likely commence after the election, given that we will quickly be at the end of March and into a purdah period.

Given the strength of views on these issues, it is important that we do not have a quick consultation that gets lost in the run-up to the general election. This is an important issue, and we do not need to rush it. Provided we have started the engagement with stakeholders before the general election, we should allow plenty of time for people to respond to a public consultation after it.

That review will consider how effective the regulations have been. It can look at the self-regulatory elements of the regulations and how the current approach adopted by the GBGB is working and at the requirement to collect injury statistics and how those can be used. It can also look at the traceability of greyhounds after they have left the sport, because one of the biggest concerns that is often raised about the current situation—the hon. Member for Islwyn highlighted this—is that nobody is sure where between 2,000 and 4,000 greyhounds a year, by some estimates, end up. We know that many excellent charities help to re-home greyhounds that have left racing, but there is concern about some of the others.

The hon. Member for Islwyn mentioned a number of issues that he would like to be addressed in that review, and I think that all of them could indeed be covered. For instance, he highlighted the importance of independent welfare oversight and asked whether other welfare charities could be involved, and I see no reason why that could not be explored through the review. It is exactly the kind of thing that we should do.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the importance of transparency on statistics. We know that the regulations now require the GBGB to require all its tracks to record instances of injuries. Many say that those injuries should be submitted to the GBGB and perhaps published, so that there is transparency in that regard. Again, these are all valid points that can be addressed through the review.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romford highlighted the issue of doping and the use of drugs. This is a good point. We should recognise that the use of doping and drugs in this context would already be a breach of the Gambling Act 2005, which, as my hon. Friend will know, given his background in this, sets out many provisions in this regard. We should also recognise that the GBGB has done some good work in this area. It has taken it quite seriously, spending more than £640,000 a year on drug sampling and research to ensure that it is able to detect substances, as my hon. Friend said.

Finally, the hon. Member for Islwyn mentioned over-breeding. This is an issue with many breeds—the greyhound is not the only example—and the Kennel Club has started to become alert to this problem and to do work on it, including the dangers and welfare impacts. I am sure that when we have that review, organisations like the Kennel Club and other animal welfare organisations, which have themselves done good work in this connection, may want to contribute to it.

In conclusion, we have had a good, well-informed debate with hon. Members who have a lot of experience of this issue. I am sure that many of the points that have been raised will be pertinent to the review that we are about to commence, first with stakeholders and then with the wider public during the next six months. I again congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and hon. Members on their important contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

2. What steps she is taking to assist dairy farmers in the south-west.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Earlier this week I attended the northern dairy conference. Farmers—including those in the south-west—are experiencing tough conditions with prices having fallen significantly since spring. On 19 November I hosted a meeting of the dairy supply chain forum and we discussed a number of action points, including better country of origin labelling for British products in the EU, opening new markets for exports, and investing to improve competitiveness and add value to dairy products through the rural development programme. The south-west Dairy Crest factory at Davidstow has benefited from such public investment.

[Mr Streeter]

As a result of dramatically falling prices, many milk producers and farmers in the west country are producing milk at a loss, which is clearly unsustainable. Can the Government offer any help, and any hope?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. At current prices many farmers are indeed making a loss, and at the dairy supply chain forum we discussed volatility. The last two years have been a rollercoaster ride for the dairy industry—it had a dire year in 2012, last year was very good, but this year is bad again. We have considered whether we can develop a successful futures market, for example in skimmed milk powder or cheese products, to help farmers manage that volatility in future.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

With volatility in the dairy industry impacting on farmers generally, does the Minister agree that the EU intervention threshold, which was agreed at 18p per litre in 2003, does not protect dairy farmers across the UK and is in urgent need of review? What representations will he make to Brussels on that?

[George Eustice]

I met Northern Ireland representatives from Dairy UK when I was in Brussels last week and they raised that point with me. The European Commission is looking at the intervention price, and our officials are working on what the appropriate price would be. Generally, an increase in that intervention price would tend to benefit other countries that have lower prices before it benefits UK farmers, but we are considering the issue.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

The dairy price of 25p and falling means that farmers are producing at a loss. The dairy trade adjudicator can look at parts of the trade, but are there more ways to deal with the price, especially of processed cheese in the supermarket sector? The price of milk is dealt with by supermarkets, but processed cheese is not.

[George Eustice]

I have considered those issues, which I discussed last week when I appeared before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. My view is that our grocery code, together with the adjudicator, adequately covers retailers, and the Competition and Markets Authority has powers to consider issues further up the supply chain. Our dairy supply chain code is working successfully—the recent review by Alex Fergusson confirmed that—but we must focus on making it work better.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

Like many farmers across the country, dairy farmers do not trade directly with supermarkets but deal with processors and food manufacturers. Does the Minister believe that opening up the responsibility of the groceries code adjudicator would bring greater transparency to the marketplace?

[George Eustice]

As I said, the Competition and Markets Authority already has some ability to look further up the supply chain. The dairy supply chain code covers 85% to 90% of all production. Crucially, it gives farmers the ability to walk away from a contract at three months’ notice if they do not like it. They can shop around. The code is working successfully.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

3. What estimate her Department has made of the number of people who used emergency food aid in the last 12 months; and what steps the Government are taking to reduce food poverty.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Research published in February by Warwick university found no systematic peer-reviewed UK research on why people turn to food aid. Subsequent reports by the all-party parliamentary group on hunger and food poverty acknowledge that people turn to food aid for complex reasons. The best way of reducing poverty is to grow our economy and get people back into work. Since 2010, 1.7 million more people are in work. We have also increased the income tax personal allowance to remove more than 3 million of the lowest earners from taxation. Finally, we have helped the most vulnerable to have access to nutritious food by, for instance, providing free school meals, and through projects such as Healthy Start.

[Nic Dakin]

Does the Minister agree not only that we should applaud people such as those who work for the Scunthorpe food bank, who do an absolutely first-class job, but that we should be ashamed that, in this year, in this century, people in one of the most prosperous countries in the world are surviving on food banks?

[George Eustice]

I join the hon. Gentleman in commending the great work that food banks do. I have at least two in my constituency and plan to visit before the Christmas period—I met the leader last week. People turn to food aid for many complex reasons, including mental health problems. We should recognise that food aid is not limited to the UK and is a global phenomenon. We have seen a big increase in the use of food banks in the US and other European countries.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May I commend to my hon. Friend the “Feeding Britain” report, which was funded with support from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s charitable trust? The report makes recommendations to a number of different organisations, including directly to the food industry, such as encouraging the redistribution of fresh surplus food to food assistance providers and voluntary organisations. Will Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers meet the food industry and the supermarkets to go through the report’s recommendations for the food industry, and see what action the food industry and supermarkets can take?

[George Eustice]

Yes, we will meet retailers and the food industry. The Waste and Resources Action Programme already has a working group to look at how barriers to the redistribution of food can be removed. We have always been clear that the redistribution of food is far better than recycling, and it comes first in the waste hierarchy.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

We have not made enough progress in the three years since I introduced my Food Waste Bill, which tried to highlight the fact that up to 40% of the food produced in this country does not get eaten. Rather than just having voluntary discussions, has the Minister considered making the industry start to donate the food that would otherwise be wasted?

[George Eustice]

We made progress with the first two rounds of the Courtauld commitment. We have reduced domestic household waste by 15%, and waste in the supply chain has been reduced by more than 8%. There is further to go and more to do, which is why the third round of the Courtauld commitment set ambitious targets.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that the great benefit of food banks, particularly Isle of Wight and Trussell food banks, is that they are controlled and run by people who have absolutely nothing to do with the Government? Those on the Isle of Wight are brilliantly organised and supported.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The strength of those charities is that they are run by volunteers and are unencumbered by bureaucracy. That is one reason why we have resisted calls to put reporting obligations on them. We want them to focus on doing their good work rather than on filling out bureaucratic forms for the Government.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

4. How many water companies offer a social tariff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

5. What progress has been made on implementation of the landing obligation for fisheries.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

The North sea and North Western Waters regional groups agreed a discard ban for the pelagic sector earlier this year. Those plans were subsequently approved by the European Commission and will be implemented from 1 January. The Government are now developing the regional discard plans needed to support the introduction of the demersal landing obligation from January 2016.

[Dr Whiteford]

The landing obligation comes into effect for the pelagic fleet in three weeks’ time and the revised regulations are still not in place. Of greater concern to me, however, is that there will be no consistent compliance regime for our boats and boats from non-EU countries fishing in our waters. That is unacceptable and it is undermining confidence in the policy before it has even got under way. Will the Minister look once again at the proposals brought forward by the industry to sort this out, and speak to the Commission?

[George Eustice]

I have had many discussions with the industry on the importance of having a level playing field on enforcement. Norwegian boats and other third-country boats with access to EU waters are required to abide by the discard plan. On enforcement, we got agreement at the EU-Norway deal just last week to ensure that that is now discussed. A working group will discuss how we ensure a level playing field.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

6. What recent discussions her Department has had with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the groceries code adjudicator’s ability to levy fines.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, policy responsibility for this issue rests with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. However, following concerns expressed by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee last week to both the Secretary of State and me, I have written to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who has responsibility for employment relations and consumer affairs, to bring this issue to her attention.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to hear that the Minister is on the case. Yesterday I received a written answer from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which said that cross-ministerial discussions are taking place. When are the groceries code adjudicator’s first investigations likely to conclude? Will the statutory instrument be laid by then to allow her the necessary tools, should she need them?

[George Eustice]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I served on the Committee that considered the Bill that introduced the supermarket adjudicator, and I supported the introduction of fines. At the moment, this matter is subject to cross-Government discussions, and we anticipate an outcome some time in the new year.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Underlying the drop in dairy prices is the huge power imbalance between the small individual dairy farmer and the huge processor. It is not good enough that my hon. Friend is looking to beef up the voluntary code. Will he look closely at a statutory basis and extending the remit of the groceries code adjudicator to this very imbalanced relationship in dairy production?

[George Eustice]

If we were to have statutory oversight of the dairy supply chain code, we would have to put the code itself on a statutory basis. Because of EU legislation, however, that would make the code far weaker than what we have. For instance, farmers would not have the ability to walk away from contracts with three months’ notice. The course that my hon. Friend outlines would make things worse for farmers, not better.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

7. What recent assessment she has made of progress on improving the cleanliness of the River Thames.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

15. What estimate her Department has made of the number of people who used emergency food aid in the last 12 months; and what steps the Government are taking to reduce food poverty.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

As I said earlier, the recent report by the all-party parliamentary group on hunger and food poverty concluded that people turned to food aid for complex reasons. The Government believe that the best way to help people out of poverty is to help them into work, and with that in mind we have created 1.7 million jobs since 2010. We are also helping the most vulnerable to have access to food by means of, for instance, free school meals and improvements in the welfare system.

[Chi Onwurah]

The Minister may speak of “complex reasons”, but every week my office and I deal with people who have lost their benefits because of sanctions or confusion over delays in the payment of disability living allowance. This weekend I met a woman who had £1.37 to get her through the next week. Will the Government acknowledge that their decisions and their aggressive sanctioning are driving hundreds of thousands of people to food banks?

[George Eustice]

In fact, the timeliness of benefit payments has improved: 90% of payments are now made on time, which is an improvement on the position under the last Government. As for sanctions, the Department for Work and Pensions and jobcentres are ensuring that hardship payments are available to those who need them because they have been sanctioned.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Is it not a plain fact that pre-prepared food costs much more than food that is cooked at home? Will my hon. Friend join me in praising schools that teach children from both poor and wealthy families how to cook?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend has made a very good point. Our new school curriculum for primary schools includes learning to prepare basic dishes and understand more about food. If we can teach people to prepare their own food, they will find that it is often far cheaper than pre-packaged food.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has ministerial responsibility for food production and processing, so it is concerning that yesterday she transferred a question about campylobacter contamination in chicken, which had been on today’s Order Paper, to the Department of Health. The Food Standards Agency has said that 70% of chicken on sale in Britain, much of it produced here, is contaminated by campylobacter. That is higher than the salmonella infection rate in poultry in the 1980s. What is she doing to tackle this totally unacceptable state of affairs?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I can tell the hon. Lady that there is a project being run by the FSA and BOC to try to develop a treatment system of blast-chilling poultry to deal with this disease. Earlier this year the FSA ran an information campaign to raise awareness among the public of this problem, and as she is aware, the FSA has also recently published information about the incidence of campylobacter in poultry among a range of retailers.

[Maria Eagle]

The Minister sounds complacent. He has no plan to deal with this scandal, beyond transferring questions about it to other Departments. Food poisoning caused by campylobacter contamination in the poultry industry costs our economy and the NHS £900 million a year in days off work and treatment costs. It kills an estimated 100 people and makes 280,000 people ill every year. When will he stop being the mouthpiece of the food poisoners and start being the champion of consumers?

[George Eustice]

I simply say to the hon. Lady that, as she well knows, the FSA is the responsibility of the Department of Health. The FSA leads on food safety issues, including campylobacter. It is the FSA that has decided to publish this information, so it is right that the Department of Health should lead on this issue, but I totally reject the notion that I have been complacent: within the first week of coming into this job a year ago, I had our chief and deputy chief veterinary officers give me a briefing on the issue.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

T4. There are 11 microbreweries, and even the Holmfirth vineyard, in my Colne Valley constituency in West Yorkshire. Will my right hon. Friend and the Department continue to support the success of the UK brewing industry, especially the businesses in my constituency, which are exporting their ales across the world, including to Australia?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

T7. The Marine Management Organisation says that it cannot meet me to discuss the disposal site at Rame Head South because of a judicial review. Will the Minister support my call to withdraw the existing licence and apply for a shorter one so that a new site could be investigated, the River Tamar could be dredged and we could care for the marine environment?

[George Eustice]

I understand that lawyers representing both parties in this judicial review are in discussions. I think the hon. Lady will agree that we need to ensure that we can continue to dredge the Tamar, which is a vital to the important port of Devonport. Also, I have always made it clear to her that I am willing to have meetings with residents, with the dredging company and with her to see whether it would be possible to identify an alternative site for the longer term.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T6. Around 10 million turkeys are slaughtered each year for the Christmas market. The vast majority are intensively reared and kept in sheds containing up to 25,000 turkeys, with no fresh air and very little light. They are fattened up so fast that they collapse under their own body weight. It is almost certainly too late to save this year’s turkeys, but what is the Minister doing to improve animal welfare standards in the future?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady should recognise that there are a number of free range turkey farms, and that these are growing in popularity as demand increases. I can tell her that we are in the process of reviewing all our animal welfare codes, and having discussions with the industry and with animal welfare groups such as Compassion in World Farming. It is our intention to get the new codes in place as soon as possible.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

T8. One of the side effects of hydraulic fracturing at depth is the huge amount of contaminated water that has to be disposed of. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State take a close personal interest in the first fracking application, because at this stage Third Energy has had no detailed discussions with the relevant water company about how to dispose of the contaminated water safely?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The landing obligation for fisheries is potentially a disaster for the Northern Ireland fishing industry, and it is to be introduced in January 2016. What discussions have taken place with the fisheries Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly about the effect the discard policy will have on the nephrops fisheries in the Irish sea?

[George Eustice]

I have regular meetings and discussions with representatives from the Northern Ireland industry, including earlier this week, when we discussed our approach on the total allowable catch—TAC—for nephrops for next week’s December Council meeting. The landing obligation contains many flexibilities: there is a de minimis; we can bank and borrow quota from one year to the next; and where there is high survivability we are able to put species back. There are sufficient flexibilities in the regulation to make this discard ban work, but there is detail we need to resolve, which is why we are issuing a consultation in the new year to begin that process.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), across rural England there are many concerns about the safety of the exploitation of shale gas, so can the Secretary of State confirm that no site will be given the go-ahead without approval from the Health and Safety Executive as well as the Environment Agency? They must be satisfied that any site will comply with strict safety criteria.

Fishing Industry

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs McGuire]

I was coming on to that exact point. Considering the balance in the industry is not about undermining the contribution of one, or ignoring the contribution of the other. The hon. Lady makes a valuable point.

The quotas were set 25 to 30 years ago, and there has been a decreasing allocation for small inshore fishing vessels. The 5,000 small vessels, as the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) highlighted, currently have only 4% of the quota. It is increasingly difficult for inshore fishermen to make their small businesses—for that is what they are—viable, but they are part of the supply chain and they bring money into local communities.

I do not accept everything that Greenpeace says, but it is worth highlighting the article alluded to by the hon. Member for Waveney. A large Dutch ship, the Cornelis Vrolijk, flies a British flag—my understanding is that one can get a British flag by registering and paying £111—and currently takes up an enormous proportion of the UK quota. All of the 34,000-tonne ship’s landings go to Holland. Nothing goes to any UK port. The implications for the local economy, the processing industry and so on cannot be underestimated.

I understand that one of the criteria for registering for a British flag is that an economic link with Britain be demonstrated. Will the Minister explain the economic link between the large vessels that are scooping up—legitimately—their quotas and Britain, which allows those vessels to fly a British flag without landing in Britain? What efforts will he make to rebalance the quota allocation? What engagement has he had with inshore fisherman? Can the UK take that process forward unilaterally or does it have to be part of a wider engagement within the EU?

It has been suggested, and I have seen nothing to the contrary, that the fishing industry will be represented at the Fisheries Council by the 7th Baron De Mauley. As Scottish National Members know, although I agree with their party on some areas, I have difficulties with some of its policies. However, I find it astonishing that this year’s fisheries discussions are not being led by the most experienced Fisheries Minister in Europe, the current Scottish Fisheries Minister. I do not know why that has happened. I do not know why the noble Lord De Mauley has been hauled in—an appropriate phrase, given that we are talking about fishing—to these discussions. Why should fishermen have confidence in somebody with no apparent connection with the fishing industry?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I think the right hon. Lady is labouring under some confusion. I will be at the December Fisheries Council next week, representing the interests of the whole UK. The purpose of this debate is for me, as UK Minister, to receive representations from Members throughout the UK. One major problem with being represented by the Scottish Fisheries Minister is that he would not be here, at this Dispatch Box, to take representations from across the UK.

[Mrs McGuire]

I hear what the Minister says.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate hon. Members and the members of the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries on securing the debate and on obtaining the support of the Backbench Business Committee for it. I also acknowledge, as a number of other hon. Members have, the commitment to the fisheries debate over many years of the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). Once again, it has been a spirited debate with many questions, and I will try to cover as many of those as I can.

First, it is important to take this opportunity to remember the eight men who lost their lives at sea during the past year in incidents involving five vessels—the Eshcol, the Diamond, the Ronan Orla, the Barnacle 3 and the Ocean Way. The contribution from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about the importance of improving safety at sea was particularly powerful. We all recognise the difficult and dangerous work that fishermen do to bring food to our tables, and I know that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to those men and offering sincere condolences to all the families and friends who have suffered loss.

Many important points have been raised in today’s debate, and I shall try to cover as many as I can. This year’s December Fisheries Council will be particularly challenging, with Commission proposals for reductions in the quotas of most stocks, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out. However, I aim to negotiate a fair and balanced package of fishing opportunities for our fishermen. The quotas set should be consistent with our objectives: they should be based on the best available scientific advice; they should aim to achieve maximum sustainable yield where possible; and they should help the industry with the transition to the discard ban.

[Sheryll Murray]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

I will carry on, because I want to cover as many of the points that have been raised as possible, including many that she raised.

In the run-up to the December Council, we have already secured successful outcomes in three major international negotiations on fishing opportunities this year. The outcome of the EU-Norway talks last week was particularly encouraging. The agreed increases in quotas—5% for North sea cod and 7% for haddock and plaice—show the benefits of responsible management. Some difficult decisions taken in previous years are now starting to pay dividends for the fishing industry in the North sea.

I am also pleased that the EU secured a three-party north-east Atlantic mackerel agreement last month. That sustainable agreement will bring around £250 million to the UK. The EU also successfully negotiated an agreement with the Faroes this week. The result is a very good one for the UK, providing our fishermen with opportunities to catch a number of species in Faroese waters, including 817 tonnes of cod and haddock and 696 tonnes of saithe.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), mentioned crab allocations in the south-west. I can confirm that just today a swap agreement has been secured with Irish producer organisations that will enable our very important crab fishery in the far south-west to remain open until the end of the year.

However, I recognise that there are challenges in other areas, particularly the south-west, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, and I have taken those into account when deciding our negotiating position. Let us be clear that we cannot increase quotas if the science does not support it. I do not believe that to do so would be in the long-term interests of our fishermen; if we fish unsustainably, we simply rob them of their tomorrow. If we want a long-term, viable industry, we must fish sustainably. However, while having science as our guiding principle, we have to ensure that we use the best and most up-to-date science available and take decisions that are right for the fish stocks and right for the fishing fleets that depend on them.

Last Thursday I had a meeting with Commissioner Vella in Brussels to begin the negotiating process for the December Council. I made a number of key points on the science. First, we should use the most recent data available where they are relevant. In the south-west, in particular, there is a lot of evidence of a late recruitment of haddock this summer, which we want to be taken into account in the December Council. Secondly, when it comes to data-limited stocks, we oppose simply having an automatic, precautionary approach. We believe that we should make the best possible judgment with the data we have, rather than having arbitrary cuts, and we have made that point already to the Commission. Thirdly, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby highlighted, it is important to have what we call mixed fisheries analysis. There is no point in dramatically cutting the quota for one species if it is in a mixed fishery, because fishermen cannot avoid it and will therefore end up having to discard it. Finally, we want to ensure that account is taken of the increased use of more selective gears.

I particularly welcome the progress that has been made so far in implementing the reformed common fisheries policy, especially in advancing regional fisheries management. The first part of the discard ban for the pelagic fisheries will come into force on 1 January 2015. That is a significant milestone in the new CFP. The new rules that will implement it were developed not in Brussels, but by regional groups of member states working together. I think that the new regionalised approach, as the hon. Member for St Ives noted, is working well. Rather than having top-down decisions from the Commission that the Council of Ministers must then try to mitigate and argue over, we are getting a multilateral agreement where member states with a shared interest in a fishery work through their differences and then take the solution to the Commission. We will shortly begin the work to prepare for the demersal discard ban in January 2016. The regional groups will meet early next summer to take those discussions forward, and in the next year we will issue a consultation to the industry so that we can take on board its views.

I know that fisheries closures have been a prominent issue this year, particularly in the Bristol channel. As a number of Members have pointed out, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) made a forceful intervention in that regard. The point I would make is that the closures are a last-resort mechanism used to protect the long-term future of the fisheries industry. He asked whether I have raised the matter with the Marine Management Organisation. I can confirm that after he raised it with me a month ago I had a meeting with the MMO to explore exactly what went wrong. It is going to set up a panel, which will include fisheries leaders. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes asked why that had not yet progressed. It has been in transition to a new chief executive, but John Tuckett is now in place. I will take up the issue with him, because I want us to learn lessons.

We must also recognise—I went through a number of these issues with the MMO—that managing quotas is a difficult task. The reality is that last year we had a very bad winter, so fishermen could not get out and catch their quotas. We then had an incredibly good summer, so the under-10 fleet, in particular, managed to catch its quota much more quickly than it normally does. Indeed, this is the first year we have had a problem with skate and ray quotas. In defence of the MMO, had it intervened earlier, that would have restricted the amount of quota that fishermen could fish over the summer. There is a fixed amount of quota, and we could not allow them to overfish it. I am sure that there are fishermen who would have said, “Now you’re making me go out and fish in November and December, but I could have caught the quota in the summer.” These are not easy issues.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon pointed out that the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation still had 100 tonnes of ray quota at the point at which the closure took place and wondered why that was. It turned out, when the figures came through, that 100 tonnes of quota were needed to cover overfishing that had already taken place in other parts of the fleet. He also mentioned a transfer that was agreed by the MMO from a Scottish producer organisation. We will want to look at that, but it has to be said that that was held by a Scottish producer organisation, not one in the west country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) proposed the idea of having compulsory log books for the under-10 fleet, which would obviously improve the speed at which we can get the data, but I am not sure that it would be universally popular with the under-10s. The reason we do not require them to have compulsory electronic log books is that they claim it would be disproportionate to the impact they have.

I will move on to some of the other points that were raised.

[Dr Wollaston]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

I want to carry on, because there are many questions that I want to answer in the time available.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby said that ICES advice is sometimes behind that which we can get from fishermen. We have a mixture of information and data that will inform the recommendations for the December Council, as well as work done by the Endeavour, a fantastic survey vessel run by CEFAS that goes to the same areas each year in order to get reliable data. We also sometimes put observers on fishing vessels so that we can look at the actual catch they are getting in practice.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether it would be possible to delay implementation of MSY. The regulation requires us to implement it where possible in 2015 and everywhere by 2020, and that is exactly what we will do. We will implement it where we can by 2015. Where we cannot implement it, because the science does not allow us to, there is the possibility to delay until 2020.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) talked about haddock in the Celtic sea. There is a big cut of over 40% proposed for that. We are doing two things in that regard. In the summer I visited the fishing vessel of David Stevens in Newlyn, who has been doing some fantastic work, together with the MMO and CEFAS, on using more selective gears. That scientific advice has now been validated by the EU’s science committee, and we will be using it next week in the December Council. We also want to make more use of the most recent recruitment data.

My hon. Friend mentioned the approach to data-limited stocks. As I said, we believe that we should make the best use we can of the data. That will be particularly important for some species in the far south-west, notably monkfish, megrim and sole. In parts of the south-west, a roll-over is proposed, but there are some quite big proposed cuts in sole in the Bristol channel, and we shall be trying to mitigate some of the impacts of that.

My hon. Friend mentioned CFP reform and whether we could remove access to our fleet. However, the UK also benefits from access in the 6 to 12-mile zone of countries such as France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland, and many of these agreements even pre-date the CFP, so the matter is not quite that straightforward.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the issue of nephrops. I met Northern Ireland fisheries representatives earlier this week, and I am meeting them again later today, so they are been well represented. Back in October, at one of our stakeholder meetings, I met Michelle O’Neill from the Northern Ireland Administration, and she will be present at the December Council next week.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and several others mentioned issues relating to the under-10 metre fleet. We are going to realign quotas, permanently, and that will give a significant uplift in quota to the under-10 fleet. We are about to put out a consultation on removing latent capacity from boats that have not been fishing. About half of them have not carried out any fishing activity at all, and we need to deal with that. A pilot has been run in Ramsgate to look at whether we could give longer-term quotas to some of the under-10 metre fleet. Earlier this year we consulted on whether the under-10 metre would want to leave the pool altogether and have the certainty of an annual quota. The fleet’s reaction to that proposal was mixed, and we have not yet made any final decisions on it. When we get into the new discard ban regime, there will be the potential for a quota uplift. We are looking at whether we can reflect the importance of the under- 10 metre fleet in making those decisions.

The right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) asked about the impact on ports and how they will cope with the discard ban. Two weeks ago, I met a whole load of representatives from the ports and we discussed some of these issues. We do have processing capacity to deal with some of the undersized fish, but there is often a logistical issue in transporting them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) invited me to the Plymouth Marine Laboratory. I attended a reception that the laboratory held a month ago, and I would be more than happy to visit it. DEFRA very much welcomes our partnership with it.

The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) referred to the role of the Scottish Government. I ought to explain what happens at the December Council. I think that we engage with the devolved Assemblies more than any other Department, and we recognise that every part of the UK has an important fisheries industry. At the Council, Richard Lochhead, Scotland’s Fisheries Minister, attends all the meetings where we decide our negotiating strategy, all the bilateral meetings that we have with other Ministers, and the trilateral meeting that we have with the presidency and the Commission. We talk regularly about the position that we take as and when we change things. All the devolved Administrations are fully engaged in the approach that we take to the December Council.

[Dr Whiteford]

rose—

[George Eustice]

I want to carry on because I am conscious of the time.

The hon. Member for St Ives asked about the roll-out of the discard ban. I think that fishermen sometimes forget about the various elements, and flexibilities, in the discard ban. If there is high survivability, fish can be put back. There is inter-species flexibility whereby someone who has, for instance, a lot of cod that they do not have quota for can count it as haddock. We start with the fish that define the fishery and finish with the smaller species. There is a de minimis exemption for people who cannot avoid doing anything else. We can borrow and bank quota from one year to the next.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) talked about the omnibus regulation. The legal position is clear: the new regulations take precedence over previous ones. The omnibus regulation was supposed to deal with that. As she said, there has been a bit of a problem in getting agreement between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and that is now at the stage of trialogues.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) asked about The Hague preference. We plan to invoke that in the usual way. We have also secured extra whiting from Norway through the EU-Norway deal. In recent years, we have diverted an extra 300 tonnes specifically to the north-east. The quota uplift that he mentioned will be finally decided in the December Council.

I hope that I have covered as many of the issues raised by hon. Members as possible. As I said, this is a challenging December Council. These meetings have a habit of going late into the night, although last year’s was an unusual exception. There are many challenging issues to address. I hope that I have managed to assure hon. Members that I am fully conscious of their concerns and will be going there to get the best possible deal we can for our fishing industry in the context of the science.

UK Sea Bass Stocks

George Eustice Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) on securing this timely and important debate. We have heard many good speeches and there is clearly a basis for quite a degree of cross-party consensus. We have certainly had our quota of former Fisheries Ministers contributing to the debate.

Sea bass is one of the most valuable species we have, both to recreational sea anglers, as many hon. Members have pointed out, and to some of our fleet of commercial fishing boats under 10 metres. We are at a pivotal moment for bass management. It is clear from the latest scientific advice from ICES that European bass stocks are in a very vulnerable state. In June 2014, ICES advised that, for us to be at maximum sustainable yield in 2015, total landings of bass in the Irish sea, Celtic sea, English channel and southern North sea for commercial and recreational fisheries should be no more than 1,155 tonnes, but last year the EU fleet commercial landings total was 4,132 tonnes, and estimated landings from the recreational sector were a further 1,500 tonnes—a total of more than 5,600 tonnes. To get to the ICES recommendation would require an 80% cut from 2013 landings.

Commercial bass fisheries in those areas include an offshore fishery on spawning fish in the channel and its approaches from January to April. That is conducted mainly by large mid-water pair trawlers, which take about a third of the total commercial landings. There is also an inshore fishery, which operates mainly between spring and autumn, using trawls, fixed and drift nets, and hooks and lines, and which involves a number of under-10-metre vessels.

Sadly, as many hon. Members have pointed out, the decline of bass is not new news, as ICES has made previous recommendations for reduction in mortality from fishing exploitation. The UK has been challenging the European Commission since 2012 to take urgent action to address that decline, and we have been at the forefront of promoting technical conservation measures for bass. It is worth reflecting on some of those proposals.

Initially, the European Commission suggested a total allowable catch for bass, but we firmly believe that that is not appropriate because a new TAC is established on track records of catches, so there is a real danger that that would simply lock in a continuation of the current exploitation pattern, which now needs to change radically. A further disadvantage of setting a TAC for bass is that it would take no account of the efforts a number of member states have already unilaterally taken to limit commercial catches, which would be unfair to those countries.

Bass is a migratory species. The ICES information clearly shows that a significant proportion—about 30%—of mortality occurs in spawning areas to which all member states have access. That is why, despite the frustrations of trying to get agreement at European level, the Government have consistently pressed, first and foremost, for technical conservation measures at EU level as the most effective way of ensuring that the bass stock recovers. Let me set out the position we have argued for in the last couple of years, because I think that will deal with many of the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley.

We have consistently argued, for instance, that there should at the very least be restrictions on targeting bass from January to April and that those should apply in the key offshore spawning aggregation areas. We have also recommended the phasing out of pair trawling to target bass. In addition, we have argued for catch limits for all EU vessels fishing for bass, to cap total effort and to avoid displacement away from pair trawling to other types of commercial fishing. Finally, we have suggested further work on the identification and protection of bass nursery areas in all member states, which will build on the progress we have made in the UK.

As many hon. Members have pointed out, the current EU proposal is far from perfect, but I think we should welcome the fact that the European Commission has at least proposed interim measures for 2015 in advance of the development of a long-term management plan for bass. However, let me be absolutely clear: I do not believe that the current proposed measures are sufficiently ambitious, nor do they achieve the right balance between the measures required for the commercial and recreational sectors, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) pointed out.

When the proposals are discussed in a couple of weeks’ time at the December Fisheries Council, I will seek to agree a more effective package of measures to finally start the recovery of the bass stock. That will be challenging, as December Council negotiations always are, but it will be a UK priority for this Council to extend and strengthen the proposals to limit commercial fishing. We will also seek a two-fish bag limit for recreational anglers, rather than the one-fish limit that has been proposed. I have talked to anglers’ representatives, and they recognise they have a role to play. They completely recognise that there should be a bag limit, but it would be wrong to have a harsh one-fish bag limit for anglers while having relaxed restrictions on the commercial sector.

A number of hon. Members pointed out that there are things we could do nationally, and I want to reflect on some of those points. On minimum landing size, once we have seen the shape of any deal that comes out of the December Council, I will consider what supplementary measures we could introduce nationally. I understand the frustration of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), whose successor not only did not bother seeing his proposal through, but actually got the knife out and cut it. Revoking an order that has already been signed is quite a big step. Listening to him and others, I was reminded of the episode of “Yes Minister” in which Jim Hacker goes to talk to his previous opposite number to try to get the lowdown on an issue. There could be a role for minimum landing size. In the first instance, I want the negotiating team to focus on getting the deal right at European level. We should also recognise that just increasing the minimum landing size without changing net gears, for instance, might be counter-productive, and we could end up with more discards, which is something we want to avoid. Finally, a minimum landing size does not deal with the problem of mortality caused by pair trawling taking place in spawning areas. That typically affects larger fish, but it can be particularly damaging.

A number of hon. Members mentioned the report the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science carried out in 2012, which was commissioned by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). Internally, it was dubbed the Benyon report. I can assure hon. Members that there is no conspiracy—it is not being hidden, and it has already been shared with the Angling Trust and other stakeholders. In the light of the comments made by a number of hon. Members, I will make sure we lodge the report in the House of Commons Library after the debate so that all hon. Members can see it.

[George Hollingbery]

May I just confirm that the Minister is talking not about the sea angling report, but about the report into the study of minimum landing size?

[George Eustice]

It was the CEFAS report of 2012, which was commissioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, which we will put in the Library. That report concluded that a minimum landing size increase applied at European level could have quite a big impact, but pointed out that, because a lot of fishing mortality is caused by foreign vessels in UK waters, a unilateral, UK-only minimum landing size would not necessarily have the desired effect.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I urge the Minister, in the last couple of minutes, to discuss the designation of bass as a recreational species.

[George Eustice]

I was going to try to cover some of the other points.

First, on the value of recreational angling, I should declare an interest, because my brother fishes bass in Cornwall and regularly lobbies me on bass stocks. Recreational angling has a significant economic value. At the end of last week, I met Charles Clover, the chairman of the Blue Marine Foundation, to discuss its latest report, and we recognise the value of that. What I am sceptical of, though, is having an outright ban on commercial fishing sectors, as has been trialled in Ireland. Anecdotally, there are quite a lot of reports of by-catch in Ireland and of bass having to be discarded because they are a by-catch of other fisheries. Ireland has found that, in the absence of a wider European agreement, just having a total ban on commercial fishing has not been effective.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) talked about me facing down legal advice. I can say that, on this issue, unlike on many other issues in DEFRA, where there is frequently legal advice about European law, I have not come across any particular legal advice that is an obstacle. This issue is much more about the best way to deliver the outcome we want, and although there are difficulties and frustrations in negotiating such outcomes at a European level, we can start by having effective measures at that level, which we can then supplement with our own national measures, and I intend to do both those things.

In the 10 seconds I have left, let me say that we should recognise the role that IFCAs can play. Many already implement their own measures to protect bass. Finally, I will be going to Europe and to the Fisheries Council to get the best deal we can.

Anti-freeze Products (Protection of Animals)

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) on raising awareness of the problems that can arise from the misuse of anti-freeze products, especially at this time of year. As he said, he takes no joy in having to come to this Chamber to raise the issue. I completely understand that the death by poisoning of such a large number of cats in Calverton has caused immense stress to the families involved. Every one of those 22 cats would have been a loved family pet. The situation is made all the worse by knowing that, as he pointed out, death by poisoning by this particular product is quite painful—that will have caused a great deal of stress to the families concerned.

I understand that the RSPCA is investigating the case and that a meeting was held recently with police and villagers to discuss the issue. The cause and circumstances, as my hon. Friend pointed out, are not clear at this stage, but the high number of deaths in one village during the summer suggests something more sinister than a simple accident.

It is important to recognise that deliberate poisoning is an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and is punishable by a fine of up to £20,000 and/or six months’ imprisonment. I do not know why anyone would want to poison cats deliberately by using anti-freeze, but there have been such instances in the recent past and they have been dealt with using the full force of the law. For example, in July a man was convicted of using anti-freeze to poison five cats and was fined £1,600. In April, another man received a 12-week suspended prison sentence for poisoning a cat with anti-freeze. As my hon. Friend said, it is too early to know whether the poisoning in Calverton was intentional or accidental.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Constituents have come to me when their cats have been the victims of anti-freeze poisoning, and I have met representatives of groups such as International Cat Care. I have also met Marc Abraham, the television vet who ran the successful Pup Aid campaign. They all say that this is a problem and that many cats that die of this poisoning are not identified as such.

I have tabled written questions about this issue. The Government say that the fact that alternatives are on the market that would not kill cats and that there is a focus on better labelling is enough to stop people from accidentally poisoning cats. However, as the Minister just said, some people are poisoning cats deliberately and those things will not stop them.

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady makes a good point and I will come back to it. Ultimately, if anti-freeze included a bittering agent and if that deterred animals from taking anti-freeze in any circumstances, that still would not deal with the problem of people deliberately setting out to poison cats and other animals. They would simply find a different weapon of choice. We must recognise that and be very clear first and foremost that when deliberate poisoning takes place, that is a clear breach of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and we should prosecute accordingly.

[Mr Spencer]

I am pleased to hear of the £20,000 fine and the six months’ imprisonment, although I am not sure that they are high enough. There are products on the market to deter cats; some squirt jets of water or emit a sound wave that distracts cats. There is no excuse in any way, shape or form for causing an animal harm when there are products that move them on or send them to a different property.

[George Eustice]

I could not agree more. The deliberate poisoning of cats is indefensible. It is a crime and should be punished as such.

It is too early to tell whether the poisoning was intentional in the case in my hon. Friend’s constituency. To avoid accidental poisoning, it is vital that people are careful when handling and storing poisonous products, particularly around children and animals. They should be especially careful when pouring poisonous liquids, which can spill easily. As my hon. Friend said, it does not take much anti-freeze to get on the paws of a cat and become hazardous. Anyone using products labelled as hazardous or poisonous should read the manufacturer’s instructions before using them and take note of the warning labels.

Anti-freeze and windscreen de-icer are a necessary part of our everyday lives, particularly at this time of year, but people must take great care when handling and disposing of them. Poisonous liquids that have spilt on the ground may seem innocuous, but animals, whether domestic or wild, may find them attractive, or at least be curious to try them.

A third phenomenon that I have been made aware of and which has the potential to cause poisoning—my hon. Friend did not touch on this—is that some people may be using anti-freeze in their garden water features to stop them freezing up in winter. There are reports of that and internet chat forums discussing whether that is sensible. It could result in animals, whether pets or wildlife, being inadvertently poisoned. We do not know for sure whether that is a cause of poisoning, but it could be; that caused me some concern when investigating the matter ahead of the debate.

Anyone in doubt about whether a household product is particularly toxic to animals should consult their vet or ask the RSPCA or groups such as Cats Protection. Many organisations provide helpful advice on their websites about animals and anti-freeze, and that is to be applauded. Their role in raising public awareness is important.

In common with most chemical products supplied for domestic use, anti-freeze is covered by the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009—the CHIP regulations. They are being replaced from the beginning of January 2015 by the EU classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures regulation. The CHIP and CLP regulations require suppliers of dangerous chemicals and products containing those chemicals to give information about the potential hazards to their customers. That is usually provided on the packaging.

Ethylene glycol, which is the chemical causing the problem, is the main ingredient of most anti-freeze. Manufacturers must label the product as a health hazard, which means placing the exclamation mark pictogram, which is replacing the current black “X” on an orange background, on the label. They must also include the following risk and safety phrases: “Harmful if swallowed” and “Keep out of the reach of children”. The regulations are enforced by local authority trading standards and are the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive, an agency of the Department for Work and Pensions. The product is clearly labelled “Harmful if swallowed” so there is no excuse for people who use it inappropriately. They should take great care in how they handle it.

The classification of ethylene glycol, and hence the legally required hazard warning, is determined by its toxicity to humans, so it would not be appropriate to impose a stricter warning. However, the regulations allow manufacturers of anti-freeze to add supplementary information on the label as long as it does not contradict the legally required phrases and is placed separately from them. It would be possible for the labels on anti-freeze to warn about the particular risk to pets, for example, and to make it clear that it would not be right to use it in garden water features. That might be a step forward. Many domestic products for use around the home can be harmful to animals and measures to control them must be proportionate and targeted.

My hon. Friend called for manufacturers to be required to add bittering agents, such as Bitrex, but some people who have followed the debate closely have asked whether that would be effective. Cats Protection, which he cited, wrote to the Government earlier this year pointing out that although some people have called for the addition of a bittering agent to anti-freeze, research in the United States has cast doubt on whether it would be entirely effective and suggested that it would not necessarily deter children from ingesting it.

Cats Protection also said that the same research had shown that ingestion of ethylene glycol by dogs and rats tended to be influenced more by a motivational state, such as hunger, rather than by its sweetness. Adding a bittering agent is not necessarily a solution in itself, but it is an interesting suggestion and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight it.

I would encourage manufacturers to consider the case for adding bittering agents on a voluntary basis. I am aware that at least one high-street retailer—Halfords—already includes Bitrex in all its branded products. However, I understand that adding ingredients could cause problems related to, for example, the effectiveness of the product and it may have some impacts on the vehicle. The debate is not straightforward, but I would nevertheless encourage manufacturers to consider what my hon. Friend has said today.

Finally, to come back to a point made earlier, we have to bear in mind that if the case that my hon. Friend mentioned involved deliberate poisoning, no amount of bittering agents or caution by people using anti-freeze would get away from that fact. If that happened in the Calverton case, it is very important that we have a rigorous investigation and that the perpetrators are brought to justice.

We have had an interesting discussion. I will draw this debate to the attention of my noble Friend Lord de Mauley, who is the portfolio holder for these issues, because my hon. Friend has raised some important points and made some very interesting suggestions.

Question put and agreed to.

Food Security

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing the debate. I also congratulate the members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on a comprehensive, rounded report that covers a wide range of issues, including self-sufficiency, whether we can improve and increase our exports, the role of the common agricultural policy, the impact of climate change, the importance of technology in agriculture and, finally, the role that reducing food waste can play in meeting our food security needs.

I will briefly set out the nature of the challenge that we face. As the shadow Minister pointed out, the Foresight report examined the issue of food security and concluded that by 2050 there will be a large increase in the world population. Some projections suggest that it could go to 9 billion. Projections suggest that that could lead to an increase in food demand of between 60% and 70%. Coupled with that is the impact of climate change, which means that parts of the world that can currently produce food may be restrained by water resources. Water could become a limiting resource, which would compromise the ability of those areas to produce food.

The Foresight report concluded in 2011 that we have a good level of food security in the UK. It also highlighted the fact that the issue is not just about self-sufficiency. In fact, self-sufficiency is in many ways—I will come on to them—the wrong measure to use for food security. Global food security depends on free trade as much as it does on sustainable production. The UK Government’s position is clear: we want a successful, vibrant farming industry and a sustainable increase in food production. We are doing a huge amount to promote exports and to try to open new markets for our products. We are also keen to deliver import substitution, particularly in dairy, where there is a great deal more potential for this country to manufacture and process more cheese. There are also export opportunities for sectors such as beef and lamb.

If we deliver that and achieve that sustainable increase in production, displace imports and grow our exports, we will of course increase our self-sufficiency. For reasons I have made clear, however, the production-to-supply ratio is the wrong measure for food security, because we could be completely food sufficient one year, but then have a dire harvest and find that we are not sufficient the next year. Part of global food security is therefore about having open markets and free trade.

It is also worth putting our level of self-sufficiency in context. Between the wars, in the 1920s and 1930s, our food security was only some 30% to 40%. At the start of the second world war and when in dire need, the country managed to switch production sharply to crops such as potatoes and got close to self-sufficiency. We can therefore change such things when we need to. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said, our overall self-sufficiency is at 60%, but our self-sufficiency in indigenous foods is still around 73%. That has stabilised in recent years, but it is down, as my hon. Friend said, from the peaks of the late 1980s and early 1990s. We must recognise, however, that a distorting common agricultural policy was driving unsustainable production at that time, and we do not want to return to that.

My hon. Friend also highlighted climate change, which is important in the context of global food security. It is clear that water will become a limiting resource in many countries, which is why some of the research that we are funding through our agricultural technologies strategy is on developing drought-resistant strains of wheat that will still be able to be grown in such countries.

We are also promoting the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Several hon. Members mentioned the green food project, which the Government took forward and published. A number of industry road maps also deal with carbon reduction. My hon. Friend also mentioned soya and its impact on the environment. It is worth noting that the pig sector has made quite good progress in reducing the amount of imported soya used for pig feed, which has contributed to a reduction in their carbon emissions. DEFRA also has greenhouse gas action plans, and we are working with industry to achieve cost-effective reductions in emissions of some 3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2022. We are therefore doing several things to deal with the environmental impact.

Several hon. Members mentioned the report’s recommendation that DEFRA should lead on food security. The Government response made it clear that we agree with that, and that DEFRA should and does lead on food security. The Government were asked whether someone should be designated to deal with the issue. Well, I am standing here, which usually means that I am the Minister who has been designated to look after this matter.

[Miss McIntosh]

The Minister is being gracious in his response, which is most welcome. We want a co-ordination role and a cohesive, comprehensive approach, which he is well qualified to provide. He steps up and says that he is responsible for food security, but we want someone to co-ordinate policy across the three Departments.

[George Eustice]

I understand that. I think that we do have that co-ordination, but I lead on food security. We also need co-ordination on science, because science will have many of the answers to the challenges we face.

Several hon. Members mentioned the Global Food Security programme, which was set up to co-ordinate food-related research. It is led by Tim Benton, whom the shadow Minister mentioned, and deals with joining up research in a number of areas, looking at how to improve resilience and the sustainable production and supply of food. It also considers nutrition, health and well-being. That programme is co-ordinating and joining up much of the specific, tailored research in this area. DEFRA is also looking more generally at whether we can co-ordinate more effectively all the various research bodies to reduce duplication and increase focus on research and its effectiveness.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned the importance of waste, an issue that the second part of the Committee’s food security report considers. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), is present for the next debate and waste is generally an issue that he covers, but it is important to recognise that, through the Courtauld commitment and the work of organisations such as the Waste and Resources Action Programme, we have already made good progress on reducing food waste. Household waste is down by some 15%, and we have reduced waste in the supply chain by some 8% and aim to reduce that further.

I want to touch on the importance of technology. Together with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, we have an agri-tech strategy and a £160 million fund, £90 million of which is a catalyst fund to support projects in order to accelerate the transfer of knowledge into farms. Another part of the fund is designed to create centres of excellence in science and food technology.

On long-range weather forecasts, I chair a farm resilience group that meets every six months and will be meeting again in the new year. The Met Office is represented in the group, and we regularly discuss how to improve weather forecasting for farmers. DEFRA has also funded a project to examine our flood resilience on the east coast, and, in addition to some other international collaboration, we are doing some work with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the US Government to understand the impact that extreme weather can have on global security. We are conscious of the weather’s impact and want to improve our forecasting.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and others mentioned the soft fruit industry’s success in extending its season. Our production-to-supply ratio for strawberries has increased from some 60% to 70% just in the past decade or so. I was in the soft fruit industry myself some 20 years ago, and some of these things are not as new as some people say. In Cornwall 20 years ago, I was producing strawberries in heated glasshouses from the end of March right through until Christmas. We used to pride ourselves on having strawberries from Easter to Christmas. The advent of Spanish and French-style polytunnels has given more protection to such crops and has enabled a more widespread extension of the season. My hon. Friend also mentioned apricots, which are indeed now grown in the UK under temporary polythene structures.

I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of reforming the common agricultural policy. The Government argued against the greening measures in pillar one and were clear that it should be kept as simple as possible, and that the best way to deliver for the environment was through our highly successful agri-environment schemes and pillar two. I can confirm that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has written to new Commissioner Hogan, with whom I spoke last week. The European Commission is certainly open to the idea of reconsidering some of the greening requirements, and possibly even reconsidering in the mid-term review the idea of the three-crop rule or how it is applied. We have worked with our allies in the Stockholm group of countries, which argue for reform of the CAP and the European Union, to reach a common position to argue for the simplification of the CAP. We hope to make some progress on that next year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned soya beans, and I have already touched on the fact that the pig industry has been particularly successful in reducing the amount of soya bean that it uses. The other thing to note is that one possible impact of the greening of pillar one—of which, I repeat, we were critical—is that in order to reach the three-crop rule some arable farmers may grow leguminous crops such as broad beans to count towards both their third crop and their ecological focus areas. Potentially, we could see an increase in the production of broad beans and other leguminous crops, which might then displace soya imports.

My hon. Friend also mentioned soil protection. Under our cross-compliance regime, we will scrap the need for a soil protection review, which is only a paper-based exercise that people go through and tick boxes. It does not mean much and is simply an administrative task, and we are replacing it with something much more meaningful. Where we know about soil management challenges on farms or inappropriate management of the soil having an impact on water courses, for example, we want to put in place meaningful measures to deal with that. We are completely overhauling cross-compliance in that area.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The Minister is giving a comprehensive report,. Will he give us more idea of what “meaningful measures” might be? It is only one point in his overall plans, but this different approach is interesting—to say, “We are not doing a tick-box scheme, but we will target instead.” What might such measures be? Does he have any early indications?

[George Eustice]

Yes. We will shortly be publishing the detailed guidance on the cross-compliance, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to look at it then. In essence, it means farmers ensuring that they have vegetative cover on fields for the maximum possible amount of time; that they only plough when they need to, just ahead of sowing; or that, for example, if they have a problem with water running off their fields, they might consider ploughing them in a different way so that the water does not tunnel down the furrowed ploughed land. We can do a number of different things, and that is the kind of sensible measure that we will have in cross-compliance, rather than having a simple paper-based exercise.

On the groceries code adjudicator, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned third-party complaints. I was on the Bill Committee that scrutinised the introduction of that adjudicator. Third parties may complain on behalf of other people, but she made a moot point about whether the adjudicator should be able to instigate investigations itself, without a complaint. In a year or two, a review by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which is the sponsoring Department, might consider that, but at the moment it is too early to make such a judgment.

My hon. Friend also mentioned new entrants. I confirm that we are working on a plan to support new entrants into the industry through the rural development programme. It is a delight to be in the Chamber today, but were it not for this debate, I would have been speaking at the Farmers Weekly “Fertile Minds” conference in Cumbria, which is all about trying to engage new people into the industry. That is something that we are looking at, and I am working on a project about encouraging the use, for instance, of share farm or contract farm agreements to create alternative routes for new people into the industry.

We are already delivering on our commitment to increase exports. Through UK Trade & Investment, we have already helped 2,500 food and drink companies and, so far this year, we have opened more than 100 new international markets to animals and animal products. That includes countries such as the Cayman Islands, the Dominican Republic, Mongolia and, for dairy products, Cuba. We are leaving no stone unturned when it comes to opening new markets.

A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), mentioned the previous Government’s “Food 2030”. People can, however, get too hung up on particular reports. I have read the report and, where it talks about the importance of agricultural technology, I would argue that we have taken things forward in our agri-tech strategy and other things. The report mentions the importance of sustainable intensification—we have had our own green food project with various route maps. It talks about new entrants—I have just explained what we hope to do on that. There is a consistency of themes between what we are doing and what was identified in the report as a challenge.

In addition, we have asked the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and its new chair, Peter Kendall, to put in place a plan for British agriculture and for how we can make it more competitive. That is a priority for that levy organisation.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I take on board what the Minister is saying about consistency in Government policy. It was probably too naive of me to expect that the branding would have stayed the same; as long as the policy stays the same, that is the consistency that the industry is looking for.

[George Eustice]

There we go, we have an outbreak of consensus. As I said, we are taking forward many of the points.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the existing precarious condition of the dairy industry, which has seen sharp falls in prices. I will have the pleasure of appearing before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee next week to discuss such issues in more detail. For now, I point out that last week we had a meeting of the dairy supply chain forum, which I chair. We looked at the issue of price volatility and at whether the industry can do more, or whether we can support it, to develop financial instruments that might help them to manage volatility in future. We have also had a review by Alex Fergusson MSP of how the dairy supply chain code is working.

On GM foods, which a number of hon. Members mentioned, our position is consistent. We believe in a science-based approach; if we get the regulation right, there could be a role for such crops. That remains our position. We have always sought allies to argue that case in the European Union.

The hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) talked about food security and, in the context of food banks, people’s ability to afford food. I will not stray into areas that are the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions, which might be outside the scope of the debate, but I want to say that although there was a big spike in food prices in 2008, in the past year we have seen food prices fall for the first time since 2002. I chair AMIS, the Agricultural Market Information System, which monitors agricultural commodity markets, and most of the projections at the moment are that for the next couple of years there will be relative stability in cereal prices.

The hon. Member for Ogmore mentioned animal feeds. I want to touch on that, because animal feed costs are lower. Although prices are in some cases just as low for dairy farmers as they were two years ago, the fact that animal feed prices are lower means that farmers’ financial viability is not as compromised as it might have been. He also talked about local food networks, and we are keen to encourage and promote local food production. That is why we asked Peter Bonfield to put in place our new Government plan for procurement, which is all about encouraging the public sector locally—schools and hospitals—to buy and source its food locally, from local suppliers.

The hon. Member for Ogmore also mentioned the role of health. Public Health England regularly runs campaigns to encourage healthy eating, in particular the “eatwell plate”, through which people are encouraged to have their five a day, to moderate their meat consumption and so on.

The final thing that I wanted to mention was the point about meat production made by the hon. Gentleman. We are not going to lecture people on what they should or should not eat, but one of the things that emerged from an informal session that we had at the European Council recently was what might happen if we want to reduce our carbon footprint in meat production, which is perhaps a bit of a trend towards less intensive systems, predominantly using grassland production, the environmental impact of which is lower. The lamb and beef systems of production in this country have less impact on the environment than those of many other countries.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My intention is to come back only on that point, because a lot of good stuff is going on and there is a lot of continuity, which is great and which people want to see. The Minister mentioned procurement and diet, health and well-being, but with so many such areas involved, does he sit down with other Ministers and talk about the effect of X, Y and Z on the food industry, jobs, average earnings, food banks or the response to food aid, telling them what he would like them all to do?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman has been in government, and he knows that Ministers have regular meetings with other Ministers on a range of issues. I regularly meet the Health Minister with responsibility for those matters to discuss issues such as nutrition.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

rose—

[George Eustice]

I will give the hon. Gentleman one more go.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I am trying to enhance the Minister’s position. I would like him to sit down in a cross-departmental way and say, “Health, you are doing great things. BIS, you are doing great things. All of you are doing great things, but it is within a context. We will deal with things, such as access to food within the UK, and we will do it in this manner, coherently.” I want him to do that. Will he do it?

[George Eustice]

As we said in our response to the report, DEFRA leads on food security. Ministers have many meetings with ministerial colleagues, and we have many cross-Government committees, some of which are chaired by Ian Boyd, DEFRA’s chief scientist, and some of which are chaired by officials. This is an important debate on a wide-ranging report that makes an important contribution to the debate on food security. Again, I congratulate the members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on their work.

Control of Horses: Instruction

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That it be an instruction to the Control of Horses Bill Committee that it has power to make provision in the Bill about the powers of owners or occupiers of any land in England in relation to horses which are on the land without lawful authority.

The Control of Horses Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) was supported by the Government on Second Reading and enjoyed support from across the House. I congratulate him on bringing this Bill forward.

The Bill amends section 7 of the Animals Act 1971 with respect to the process for managing horses present on land without lawful authority and applies to England only. In the case of fly-grazing, horses are often abandoned or deliberately placed on another person’s land without permission to do so. The Bill reduces the time that a landowner or a local authority is required to detain a horse before disposing of it from 14 days to four working days, and also creates alternative ways to dispose of horses, other than through sale at auction.

During the debate, the Government also accepted my hon. Friend’s request for this motion. The instruction is needed because the long title of the Bill provides for dealing with horses in public places only. With this instruction it will be possible for the Bill Committee to consider amendments to the Bill to extend its provision to private land. Should the Committee agree to those amendments, the long title of the Bill would then be adjusted accordingly.

This is an important Bill. It has cross-party support, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing it forward and commend the motion to the House.